Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ministry of Justice has completed draft of Part Ⅵ of the Korean Commercial Code, Carriage by Air. The international convention on air carriage such as the Montreal Convention 1999 and the Rome Convention 1952 and 1978 have affected seriously on the bill. This article discusses especially the liability for third party damages caused by aircraft. Some commentators criticise the draft because it has followed the principle [doctrine] of strict [absolute, no-fault] liability of the Rome convention. This writer has answered back in pointing that two treaties, which recently had been established by ICAO, one on the compensation for general risk damage caused by aircraft, the other one on compensation for damage from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft, could not successfully in effect in the short future, although Both Conventions improved the old Convention/Protocol in many aspects. In the meantime, the Rome Convention System is still alive and it is urgently necessary for the Republic of Korea to have an alternative regulation onliability for third party damages caused by aircraft, because Korea has no other rules on air carriage but general conditions of air carriage made by air carrier. Blames to the principle of strict liability of the Rome convention also is groundless because this principle was adopted by consensus all participants to the Rome Convention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".